LudicrousSpeed said:
Again, idk, try reading? He asked a question and I answered it. I really don't know how simpler I can make it for you. @bold, that isn't what I said at all. I am greatly enjoying watching people twist words and struggle so mightily just to make it seem as if there is an agenda or double standard here. My comment was in regards to putting an emphasis on resolution over playability. If a company does what they can and the game still drops frames, that has nothing to do with my point. Idk what you said after the bold and I am not going to bother reading since you're not understanding from the start. This is becoming my all time favorite chartz thread. |
The reason this logic fails your argument is Respawn could have lowered the resolution to get higher fps. Thats a fact what we dont know is how much the resolution had to be lowered. So Respawn made a decision that the resolution was more important at that point than getting a higher fps. For all we know they would had to lower the res to 480p to achieve this, which would make there decision justified. When you make a blanket statement about how FPS is alway more important than res it backs you into a corner in situations like this where you need to spin spin spin. Just be consistent and unbiased, is it that hard?
